You are on page 1of 18

Evaluation & Accountability Page

2011 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)


National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) Results Dallas ISD
NAEP is a congressionally mandated project oI the National Center Ior Education Statistics. Located
within the United States Department oI Education and the Institute oI Education Sciences, NAEP
provides a comprehensive measure oI students` learning at critical junctures in their school experiences.
It is the only nationally representative assessment oI what America's students know and can do in various
subject areas. Assessments are conducted periodically in mathematics, reading, science, writing, the arts,
civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history.
Since NAEP assessments were administered uniIormly across the nation, NAEP results serve as the
nation`s report card and a common metric Ior all states and selected urban districts. This permits NAEP to
provide a clear picture oI students` academic progress over time.
TUDA is designed to explore the Ieasibility oI using NAEP to report on the perIormance oI public school
students at the district level. In accordance with Iederal law, NAEP administered the mathematics and
reading assessments to samples oI Iourth- and eighth-grade public school students in urban districts
across the country.
Urban school districts had to meet the Iollowing criteria to participate in the TUDA project:
1. ust be located in large cities having a population oI 250,000 or more.
2. ust be large enough to support a three-subject assessment cycle Ior NAEP in grade levels included
in the state assessment program.
3. ust have a majority (50 percent or more) oI students meeting at least one oI the Iollowing criteria:
(a) Either AIrican American or Hispanic
(b) Eligible Ior participation in the Iree and reduced-lunch program (or other appropriate indicators
oI poverty status).
In 2011, the National Assessment Governing Board invited 21 urban school districts to participate in
TUDA project. Three districts, including Dallas were Iirst year participants.

Albuquerque Public Schools
Dallas ISD
Hillsborough County Public Schools

NAEP is administered nationally over a six-week period. For 2011, that period was January 24 through
arch 4. NAEP uses a careIully designed sampling procedure Ior the assessment to be representative oI
the geographical, racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity oI schools and students in the state. First,
schools are selected to be representative oI schools. Then, within each chosen school, students are
randomly selected to participate. Each participating student represents hundreds oI other similar students.
About 3,000 students in approximately 100 schools are selected in each state Ior each grade and subject.
Each student is only assessed in one subject area. Accommodations are provided as necessary Ior students
with disabilities and English language learners.
The results oI NAEP are released as The Nations Report Card. The report card provides national, state,
and district-level results, results Ior diIIerent demographic groups, inclusion inIormation, and sample
questions.

Evaluation & Accountability Page

#esults

Demographic inIormation oI the nation statistics, the large city statistics, and the 21 TUDAs are presented
in Tables 1-4, one Ior each grade and subject tested. It is important to consider the diIIerences in
demographic makeup when comparing results.

Comparison results oI Dallas ISD and the state oI Texas, Large City, and Nation by student groups as
well as by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) eligible and English Language Learners (ELL) are
then provided. The statistic used is the average scale score.

The last section provides the comparison oI Dallas and the other 20 TUDA districts. Those districts with
similar demographic characteristics are districts with comparable demographics. Tests oI signiIicance
were completed and those districts are indicated with a star. A black star indicates no diIIerence in
scores, a blue star indicates a signiIicantly higher score, and a red star indicates a signiIicantly lower score
than Dallas.
Evaluation & Accountability Page

Demographic ake-up

Table 1

Selected Characteristics oI Fourth-grade Public School Students in
NAEP athematics, by Jurisdiction: 2011


1urisdiction
# of 4
th

grade
#
Assessed

White

Black

Hispanic

NSLP

SPED

ELL
Nation 3,614,000 198,900 52 16 24 52 12 11
Large City` 604,000 50,600 20 27 43 74 11 22
Albuquerque 7,000 1,700 23 2 65 66 13 17
Atlanta 4,000 1,900 15 76 6 75 8 2
Austin 7,000 1,800 26 8 61 64 12 33
Baltimore City 6,000 1,300 9 87 3 88 9 3
Boston 4,000 1,700 12 34 44 81 19 35
Charlotte 11,000 1,700 35 38 18 52 10 10
Chicago 29,000 2,400 8 41 44 88 13 17
Cleveland 3,000 1,300 15 67 14 100 18 6
Dallas 13,000 1,700 5 23 71 92 6 50
Detroit 5,000 1,100 3 84 12 87 10 12
D.C. 3,000 1,400 11 72 14 72 11 8
Fresno 6,000 1,900 12 9 66 93 9 30
Hillsborough County
(FL)
15,000 1,600 37 20 35 58 16 16
Houston 16,000 2,700 8 24 64 81 6 38
JeIIerson County (KY) 8,000 1,900 53 35 6 62 13 3
Los Angeles 44,000 2,300 9 10 75 83 10 34
iami-Dade 24,000 2,600 7 25 66 74 10 16
ilwaukee 5,000 1,300 15 51 26 83 18 15
New York City 71,000 2,500 15 29 37 90 16 16
Philadelphia 12,000 1,500 12 58 22 90 13 7
San Diego 9,000 1,700 23 12 44 65 9 36
*Large city includes students Irom all cities in the nation with populations oI 250,000 or more including the
participating districts.
Note: The number oI students is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number oI students assessed is rounded to the
nearest 100.



Evaluation & Accountability Page

Table 2

Selected Characteristics oI Eight-grade Public School Students in
NAEP athematics, by Jurisdiction: 2011


1urisdiction
# of 4
th

grade
#
Assessed

White

Black

Hispanic

NSLP

SPED

ELL
Nation 3,508,000 157,800 54 16 22 48 10 6
Large City` 562,000 40,000 20 27 43 70 10 11
Albuquerque 6,000 1,200 25 1 66 48 13 11
Atlanta 3,000 1,300 8 86 5 82 9 2
Austin 5,000 1,500 27 9 59 59 10 14
Baltimore City 4,000 1,000 11 84 3 85 8 2
Boston 4,000 1,200 15 37 36 76 16 20
Charlotte 9,000 1,500 33 44 15 52 10 7
Chicago 27,000 1,900 9 41 41 84 17 7
Cleveland 3,000 1,000 17 66 13 100 21 7
Dallas 10,000 1,400 5 26 68 85 5 23
Detroit 4,000 1,400 2 87 10 79 10 10
D.C. 2,000 1,300 6 78 12 70 16 6
Fresno 5,000 1,300 12 11 61 88 8 19
Hillsborough County (FL) 14,000 1,400 43 19 31 54 15 9
Houston 12,000 2,000 7 27 62 76 7 13
JeIIerson County (KY) 7,000 1,400 54 37 5 60 9 3
Los Angeles 41,000 2,100 9 9 74 82 11 19
iami-Dade 25,000 2,500 9 22 67 72 10 9
ilwaukee 5,000 1,200 12 57 23 81 17 14
New York City 74,000 2,200 14 30 41 87 16 12
Philadelphia 10,000 1,200 13 56 21 88 12 9
San Diego 8,000 1,200 24 11 42 60 11 16
*Large city includes students Irom all cities in the nation with populations oI 250,000 or more including the
participating districts.
Note: The number oI students is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number oI students assessed is rounded to the
nearest 100.



Evaluation & Accountability Page

Table 3

Selected Characteristics oI Fourth-grade Public School Students in
NAEP Reading, by Jurisdiction: 2011


1urisdiction
# of 4
th

grade
#
Assessed

White

Black

Hispanic

NSLP

SPED

ELL
Nation 3,614,000 202,900 52 16 23 52 11 11
Large City` 602,000 50,800 20 27 42 73 11 21
Albuquerque 7,000 1,700 24 2 64 65 12 17
Atlanta 4,000 1,900 15 77 5 75 6 1
Austin 7,000 1,600 29 8 58 60 7 28
Baltimore City 6,000 1,300 8 89 2 88 4 1
Boston 4,000 1,700 12 35 43 80 17 35
Charlotte 11,000 1,800 35 38 18 52 9 11
Chicago 29,000 2,500 9 42 44 88 143 16
Cleveland 3,000 1,300 15 67 14 100 18 6
Dallas 13,000 1,800 6 27 67 91 5 42
Detroit 5,000 1,200 3 85 11 87 9 12
D.C. 3,000 1,500 10 72 15 72 13 7
Fresno 6,000 1,900 12 9 65 93 8 30
Hillsborough County
(FL)
15,000 1,700 37 20 35 57 15 16
Houston 16,000 2,400 9 74 60 80 56 31
JeIIerson County (KY) 8,000 1,800 54 36 5 61 9 1
Los Angeles 44,000 2,400 9 10 75 83 10 33
iami-Dade 24,000 2,700 7 25 66 74 10 15
ilwaukee 5,000 1,400 16 51 26 83 18 15
New York City 71,000 2,500 15 29 37 90 16 16
Philadelphia 12,000 1,600 13 58 21 90 13 7
San Diego 9,000 1,700 23 12 44 65 8 36
*Large city includes students Irom all cities in the nation with populations oI 250,000 or more including the
participating districts.
Note: The number oI students is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number oI students assessed is rounded to the
nearest 100.

Evaluation & Accountability Page

Table 4

Selected Characteristics oI Eight-grade Public School Students in
NAEP Reading, by Jurisdiction: 2011


1urisdiction
# of 4
th

grade
#
Assessed

White

Black

Hispanic

NSLP

SPED

ELL
Nation 3,508,000 157,800 54 16 22 48 10 5
Large City` 562,000 40,000 20 27 43 70 10 11
Albuquerque 6,000 1,100 25 2 65 59 12 9
Atlanta 3,000 1,300 8 76 4 82 8 1
Austin 5,000 1,400 26 8 59 59 7 13
Baltimore City 4,000 900 12 87 4 84 4 1
Boston 4,000 1,100 15 34 35 75 16 16
Charlotte 9,000 1,400 33 38 15 51 9 7
Chicago 27,000 1,900 9 41 41 84 17 7
Cleveland 3,000 1,000 18 67 14 100 21 7
Dallas 10,000 1,300 5 23 68 85 5 22
Detroit 4,000 1,300 2 84 9 79 11 9
D.C. 2,000 1,300 7 72 12 71 18 5
Fresno 5,000 1,300 13 9 62 88 7 19
Hillsborough County (FL) 14,000 1,400 43 20 31 54 15 9
Houston 12,000 2,000 7 24 62 76 7 13
JeIIerson County (KY) 7,000 1,300 55 35 5 58 7 2
Los Angeles 41,000 2,000 9 10 74 82 10 19
iami-Dade 25,000 2,400 9 25 67 72 10 7
ilwaukee 5,000 1,100 14 51 22 80 19 14
New York City 74,000 2,200 14 29 40 87 16 11
Philadelphia 10,000 1,200 13 58 21 88 15 8
San Diego 8,000 1,200 25 12 43 61 13 16
*Large city includes students Irom all cities in the nation with populations oI 250,000 or more including the
participating districts.
Note: The number oI students is rounded to the nearest 1,000. The number oI students assessed is rounded to the
nearest 100.



Evaluation & Accountability Page

rade 4 ath



O All Dallas ISD ethnic groups and ELL students outperIormed their 4
th
grade counterparts
in other large cities and the nation`s average.

O Dallas ISD 4
th
grade students were among the best perIormers nationally on the
NAEP/TUDA assessment.

O Test results indicated that, on average, Dallas ISD 4
th
grade students were better prepared
in math content knowledge than similar 4
th
grade students across the nation.

O PerIormance oI all Dallas ISD ethnic groups, ELL, and NSLP students was equal to (no
statistical diIIerence) or better than comparable student groups in Texas. Texas
perIormance across subgroups was equal to or better than national perIormance.

233
238
223
234
231 231
130
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
230
260
270
280
290
300
Cverall WhlLe 8lack Plspanlc nSL Lllglble LLL
2011 NAL Grade 4 Math kesu|ts
1exas Large ClLy naLlonal ubllc uallas
Evaluation & Accountability Page 8

rade 8 ath





O All Dallas ISD ethnic groups and ELL students outperIormed their 8
th
grade counterparts
in other large cities and the nation`s average.

O Dallas ISD 8
th
grades were among the best perIormers nationally on the NAEP/TUDA
assessment.

O Test results indicated that, on average, Dallas ISD 8
th
grade students were better prepared
in math content knowledge than similar 8
th
grade students across the nation.

O Texas student perIormance was equal to or better than national perIormance.

O Dallas 8
th
grade Hispanic students` perIormance was at the top among the 21 TUDA
districts. Dallas` Hispanic population is the second-largest among the 21 TUDA districts
behind Los Angeles.
274
306
264
276
272
236
200
210
220
230
240
230
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
330
Cverall WhlLe 8lack Plspanlc nSL Lllglble LLL
2011 NAL Grade 8 Math kesu|ts
1exas Large ClLy naLlonal ubllc uallas
Evaluation & Accountability Page 9

rade 4 Reading






O Dallas ISD Black, White, and ELL students outperIormed their 4
th
grade counterparts in
other large cities and the nation`s average.

O Dallas ISD 4
th
grade Hispanic students perIormed less well than 4
th
grade Hispanic
students in other large cities and the nation.

#ationale:
Dual Language Program: Students remain in the program until grade 5,
receiving reading instruction in Spanish.

An extremely high enrollment oI ELL Hispanic students at grade 4.

NAEP does not oIIer the reading test in Spanish.

Assessed Hispanic students in English that should have been assessed in
Spanish (Inclusion Error).

O Test results indicate that, on average, Dallas ISD Black, White, and ELL students were
better prepared in reading content knowledge than other grade 4 students across the
nation.

204
237
204
200
201
192
100
110
120
130
140
130
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
230
Cverall WhlLe 8lack Plspanlc nSL Lllglble LLL
2011 NAL Grade 4 kead|ng kesu|ts
1exas Large ClLy naLlonal ubllc uallas
Evaluation & Accountability Page

rade 8 Reading





O Dallas ISD White and ELL students outperIormed their 8
th
grade counterparts in other
large city school districts and the nation`s average, while Black students perIormed
relatively the same as their Black counterparts (no statistical diIIerence).

O Dallas ISD Hispanic students perIormed as well as grade 8 Hispanic students in other
large cities (no statistical diIIerence), although not as well as Hispanic students
nationally.

O Test results indicate that, on average, Dallas ISD Black, White, and ELL students were as
well or better prepared in reading content knowledge than other large city grade 8
students.





248
276
244
246
243
223
130
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
230
260
270
280
290
300
Cverall WhlLe 8lack Plspanlc nSL Lllglble LLL
2011 NAL Grade 8 kead|ng kesu|ts
1exas Large ClLy naLlonal ubllc uallas
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

&

A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
a
g
e







ueLrolL
Cleveland
lresno
Mllwaukee
uCS
Los Angeles
Chlcago
hlladelphla
8alLlmore ClLy
ALlanLa
uallas
Large clLy
new ?ork ClLy
!efferson CounLy (k?)
Albuquerque
Mlamluade
PousLon
8osLon
San ulego
naLlonal publlc
Plllsborough CounLy
AusLln
CharloLLe
2
0
0
2
0
3
2
1
0
2
1
3
2
2
0
2
2
3
2
3
0
2
3
3
2
4
0
2
4
3
2
3
0
2
3
3
2
6
0
Average Sca|e Score
N
A
L


M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
|
c
s

G
r
a
d
e

4

v
e
r
a
|
|
A
v
e
t
o
q
e

5
c
o
l
e

5
c
o
t
e


2
0
1
1
ueLrolL
Mllwaukee
uCS
Cleveland
lresno
Los Angeles
8alLlmore ClLy
hlladelphla
ALlanLa
Chlcago
Mlamluade
new ?ork ClLy
Large clLy
!efferson CounLy (k?)
uallas
Albuquerque
San ulego
PousLon
8osLon
Plllsborough CounLy
naLlonal publlc
CharloLLe
AusLln
2
4
0
2
4
3
2
3
0
2
3
3
2
6
0
2
6
3
2
7
0
2
7
3
2
8
0
2
8
3
2
9
0
2
9
3
3
0
0
Average Sca|e Score
N
A
L


M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
|
c
s

G
r
a
d
e

8

v
e
r
a
|
|
A
v
e
t
o
q
e

5
c
o
l
e

5
c
o
t
e


2
0
1
1
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

&

A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

P
a
g
e






ueLrolL
Cleveland
lresno
Mllwaukee
hlladelphla
8alLlmore ClLy
Los Angeles
uCS
Chlcago
uallas
Albuquerque
Large clLy
ALlanLa
PousLon
San ulego
new ?ork ClLy
8osLon
naLlonal publlc
Mlamluade
!efferson CounLy (k?)
AusLln
CharloLLe
Plllsborough CounLy
1
8
0
1
8
3
1
9
0
1
9
3
2
0
0
2
0
3
2
1
0
2
1
3
2
2
0
2
2
3
2
3
0
2
3
3
2
4
0
Average Sca|e Score
N
A
L


k
e
a
d
|
n
g

G
r
a
d
e

4

v
e
r
a
|
|
A
v
e
t
o
q
e

5
c
o
l
e

5
c
o
t
e


2
0
1
1
ueLrolL
uCS
lresno
Mllwaukee
Cleveland
8alLlmore ClLy
Los Angeles
hlladelphla
uallas
PousLon
ALlanLa
Chlcago
Albuquerque
new ?ork ClLy
Large clLy
8osLon
San ulego
!efferson CounLy (k?)
Mlamluade
AusLln
naLlonal publlc
Plllsborough CounLy
CharloLLe
2
3
0
2
3
3
2
4
0
2
4
3
2
3
0
2
3
3
2
6
0
2
6
3
2
7
0
2
7
3
2
8
0
Average Sca|e Score
N
A
L


k
e
a
d
|
n
g

G
r
a
d
e

8

v
e
r
a
|
|
A
v
e
t
o
q
e

5
c
o
l
e

5
c
o
t
e


2
0
1
1
Evaluation & Accountability Page



224
222
201
211211
212
214
21S
217
219
220
221
222
223
22S22S
226
228
229
230
232
232
19S
200
20S
210
21S
220
22S
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL Mathemat|cs Grade 4 8|ack
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
262
261
243
244
246 246
249
249
2S6
2S6
2S7
2S9
260 260
262
262
263
264
26S
268
271
272
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
2SS
260
26S
270
27S
280
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL Mathemat|cs Grade 8 8|ack
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
Evaluation & Accountability Page



20S
202
187
187
190
191191
19S
196
197
198
203
204
20S
207
208
209
210
211211
21S
218
180
18S
190
19S
200
20S
210
21S
220
22S
230
23S
240
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL kead|ng Grade 4 8|ack
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
248
24S
230
231232
234
23S
238
242242
244244
24S
24S246246
246247
247
248
249
2S3
220
22S
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
2SS
260
26S
270
27S
280
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL kead|ng Grade 8 8|ack
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
Evaluation & Accountability Page




229
228
214
21S
218
220
221
223223223
227
229
229
230
234234
236
237237
238
239
240
19S
200
20S
210
21S
220
22S
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL Mathemat|cs Grade 4 n|span|c
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
269
267
2S1
2S3
2SS
2S6
2S8
2S8
2S9
261
263
264
269
270
271271
272
274
274
276
276
278
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
2SS
260
26S
270
27S
280
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL Mathemat|cs Grade 8 n|span|c
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
Evaluation & Accountability Page



20S
203
190
191
196196
198
199
200201
201
201
204
207
209
210
212
214
21S
221
222223
180
18S
190
19S
200
20S
210
21S
220
22S
230
23S
240
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL kead|ng Grade 4 n|span|c
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
2S1
249
232
234
239
241
241
243
244 24S
24S
246 246
248
249
2S1
2SS
2S6
2S8
262
220
22S
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
2SS
260
26S
270
27S
280
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL kead|ng Grade 8 n|span|c
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
Evaluation & Accountability Page




229
227
203
211
21S
216216
218
219
221
223224
226227
229
230
231
233
233
234234
23S
23S
19S
200
20S
210
21S
220
22S
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL Mathemat|cs Grade 4 Nat|ona| Schoo| Lunch
rogram L||g|b|e
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
269
266
24S
246
2S0
2S1
2S6
2S7
2S7
260
261
261
264
26S
266
267267
269
270270
272
27S
276
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
2SS
260
26S
270
27S
280
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL Mathemat|cs Grade 8 Nat|ona| Schoo| Lunch
rogram L||g|b|e
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
Evaluation & Accountability Page 8




207
204
188189
190
191
193
196
197
197
198
200
201
201
202
207
208
210
212212
214
216
219
180
18S
190
19S
200
20S
210
21S
220
22S
230
23S
240
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL kead|ng Grade 4 Nat|ona| Schoo| Lunch
rogram L||g|b|e
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011
2S1
248
228
233
234
23S
240
241
243243
24S24S24S
247
248
248249
249
2S1
2S22S3
2S42S4
220
22S
230
23S
240
24S
2S0
2SS
260
26S
270
27S
280
S
c
a
|
e

S
c
o
r
e
NAL kead|ng Grade 8 Nat|ona| Schoo| Lunch
rogram L||g|b|e
Avetoqe 5cole 5cote 2011